ChanceMcCall
Member
Many of the You Tube videos are awful and little more than the presenter trying to make themselves look good. Others are nothing more than a means for people who don't own a particular gun or perhaps any gun get their vicarious thrills watching someone else fondling and shooting a gun.
Often there is little or no hard information offered on why the gun being "reviewed" offers something other guns do not. Rarely are deficiencies in the gun disclosed, or, conversely, minor issues are blown up to trash a gun far more than it needs to be trashed.
Gun magazines have long had some of the same problems, especially when it came time to offer legitimate criticism of a gun belonging to a manufacturer who advertised in the magazine, or supplied guns to gun writers. All the writers knew, and still do, if they were too critical, the manufacturers would stop suppling guns and perhaps ammo, and the magazines would stop buying their articles.
Experienced gun owners have known for years that Ruger builds high quality tanks, but, in order for those guns to be all they can be, they often need at least one, and maybe more, trips to a gunsmith or considerable fiddling by experienced gun owners with mechanical aptitudes. I have shot SASS and CMSA for years. I spend a fortune on my Rugers, getting them right for competition using Bill Oglesby, a world famous gunsmith in the cowboy shooting world. I had, of course, tried Uberti guns, but was unimpressed. What I did not know until I was about to exit cowboy shooting was that Taylor Arms had Uberti make changes to their guns in quality and features that made them almost equal to many things my customized Rugers offered and for a whole lot less money. Why? No authoritarian articles appearing anywhere to inform me that I might want to check them out.
In my opinion, when someone is going to do a You Tube video, or write a blog, or a magazine article about anything, they should have some credentials for doing so. They should also be committed to discovering and reporting facts instead of their opinions. Recently, a You Tuber did a piece on the Bond Arms Bullpup in which he was lavish in praise (but short on factual material) with an explanation as to why he had trashed virtually the same gun, the Boberg, a year earlier. His explanation had nothing to do with the improvement in the form of a coating negating the need for anti seize grease, but rather the fact that Arnie Boberg had hurt his feelings at the Shot Show and later didn't supply him with a free gun when requested.
One of my real pet peeves, is many of these same people are offering opinions based on something they saw or read, or heard discussed rather than anything based on personal experience or even scientific research.
Do any of you feel the same way? What are the specific points you would like to see covered when people are reporting on guns, optics, ammo, etc.?
Often there is little or no hard information offered on why the gun being "reviewed" offers something other guns do not. Rarely are deficiencies in the gun disclosed, or, conversely, minor issues are blown up to trash a gun far more than it needs to be trashed.
Gun magazines have long had some of the same problems, especially when it came time to offer legitimate criticism of a gun belonging to a manufacturer who advertised in the magazine, or supplied guns to gun writers. All the writers knew, and still do, if they were too critical, the manufacturers would stop suppling guns and perhaps ammo, and the magazines would stop buying their articles.
Experienced gun owners have known for years that Ruger builds high quality tanks, but, in order for those guns to be all they can be, they often need at least one, and maybe more, trips to a gunsmith or considerable fiddling by experienced gun owners with mechanical aptitudes. I have shot SASS and CMSA for years. I spend a fortune on my Rugers, getting them right for competition using Bill Oglesby, a world famous gunsmith in the cowboy shooting world. I had, of course, tried Uberti guns, but was unimpressed. What I did not know until I was about to exit cowboy shooting was that Taylor Arms had Uberti make changes to their guns in quality and features that made them almost equal to many things my customized Rugers offered and for a whole lot less money. Why? No authoritarian articles appearing anywhere to inform me that I might want to check them out.
In my opinion, when someone is going to do a You Tube video, or write a blog, or a magazine article about anything, they should have some credentials for doing so. They should also be committed to discovering and reporting facts instead of their opinions. Recently, a You Tuber did a piece on the Bond Arms Bullpup in which he was lavish in praise (but short on factual material) with an explanation as to why he had trashed virtually the same gun, the Boberg, a year earlier. His explanation had nothing to do with the improvement in the form of a coating negating the need for anti seize grease, but rather the fact that Arnie Boberg had hurt his feelings at the Shot Show and later didn't supply him with a free gun when requested.
One of my real pet peeves, is many of these same people are offering opinions based on something they saw or read, or heard discussed rather than anything based on personal experience or even scientific research.
Do any of you feel the same way? What are the specific points you would like to see covered when people are reporting on guns, optics, ammo, etc.?
